oahelper_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it discloses the key side effect explicitly: online=true performs one network request against the site to check Pro status, while the default makes no network call. That is the most consequential behavioral trait for a status tool. It does not mention authentication requirements or rate/latency considerations, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the conditional network behavior. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the low-complexity single-parameter surface is well covered. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about auth/session prerequisites for a tool whose whole purpose is reporting session status.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% — the schema exposes only a bare 'online' boolean with default false and no explanation. The description compensates by stating exactly what the flag does (triggers one network request to check Pro status) and what the default behavior is (no network call), which is meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete resource and outcome — 'Session and usage status' — so an agent immediately knows this reports current session/usage state rather than searching or syncing. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but none of the siblings (search, company, sync, question, solution, interviews, offline) overlap with a status check, so mis-selection risk is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite (e.g., must be authenticated/logged in for session status to be meaningful). The only usage-like content is the conditional behavior of the 'online' flag, which is invocation detail rather than selection guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.